Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
antics-mcp

antics-mcp

Official
by antics-gg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_leaderboard

Retrieve top scores from a game project's leaderboard. Optionally filter by board name.

Instructions

Read a project's leaderboard (top scores).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "get_leaderboard"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYes
boardNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description indicates a read operation ('Read'), which is non-destructive, but provides no details on return format, pagination, or ordering of scores. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to disclose key behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what the 'board' parameter is, and does not describe the output format, limiting the agent's ability to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'projectId' implicitly via 'a project', but the optional 'board' parameter is completely ignored. The description adds minimal value beyond parameter names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reads a project's leaderboard, with the parenthetical '(top scores)' adding specificity. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_projects' which lists projects, not scores.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention when to use 'get_leaderboard' instead of 'list_projects' or other tools. Context of use is entirely omitted.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools